Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought for a while that I might have to leave this discussion as the only argument(s) (for the monist/materialist view) would be so vague and speculative that they wouldn't satisfy me, let alone a dualist, but I may be able to progress a bit.
But it may be better to do it in PM (if you are willing) rather than the board
because I would have to put a series of questions and whether you responded 'yes that's it' or no, that isn't it - this is what it is' would depend the next question or point.
The first one would be, do I have it right that the dualist/monist question in respect of qualia, in view of the argument I put forward that, since all consciousness is accountable by the emergence of a more complex series of reactions and actions of our biochemistry (effectively) to various internal and external stimuli, how does this account for for our
perception/experience of qualia?
That is, since I'd talk vaguely (not being an expert) of electric impulses to the brain and the brain producing patterns which other parts of the brain analyse and to which it (and the rest of our bod) reacts accordingly, just how does the translation of recieved information into this qualia work? What's the mechanism? What, in mechanical biochemical materialistic -theory terms is this perception -function? As Mystic said 'what actually is it?'
What I'm getting at (since I don't lke to look like I'm setting traps) is that in Monism (or my take on it) to argue that dualism and monism (consciousness and mental activity, qualia and mental information - processing)are the same thing, I have to produce a feasible hypothesis, if not a demonstrated mechanism, of how electronic impulses in the brain can produce and work as what we call perception. If not, then we are, as you said, painted into a corner.
Am I finally getting it, or not?
I'm bearing in mind the point about ..no, as I say, there are a whole lot of other questions depending. That's if you are willing.
If I may be so selfish to ask you...to keep this exchange on the open forum.
This three-way back-and-forth is just about the best I've seen in the year I've been reading this board.
Of course you know where I've built my house...but this discussion has helped to dig deeper into it, and expand on it, in a way nothing else before has.
I know these posts take a lot of time, effort, and contemplation to put together. So, I hope you can accept my humble request...for you to reconsider, and keep it visible (and continue). And, in addition, I would respectfully like to add this:: "PLEASE".
I would be interested in your definitions of unconscious knowledge and "knowing" (comprehending) that would characterize this unconscious form of it (without what I see as the inevitable and unavoidable primary attribute of consciousness itself). This discussion is a prime example of the lengths to which philsophers and science will go to avoid acknowledging the existence of a conscious universe (God).
I think I have already defined/explained this as well as I can, for now. But let's see if I can summarize: I've mentioned psychological evidence suggesting that people can perceive qualitative information (e.g., be "primed" for colors, etc., in psychological tests) without consciously realizing that they have perceived this information (i.e., if you ask "What color was the dot?" they will say "I didn't see any dot.") The evidence also suggests that there is a reasonably high level of cognitive processing related to this unconscious information.
Quick note: There is controversy over how high-level this processing is, but 3 things seem clear: (1) It is not as high-level as ordinary consciousness - i.e., no deep/creative thinking or dealing with deep semantic subtleties. (2) It can involve some fairly complex behaviors, such as correctly grasping a pencil. (3) It can evoke emotion responses - e.g., an unconsciously perceived image of fire coming of a house window can lead a person to say "I wouldn't want to live in that house!"
Some folks will want to say that all of these "unconscious" processes are actually conscious, when viewed from some other perspective – such as "multiple personalities" inhabiting a single body, or God's consciousness. I believe that multiple personalities are possible, and thus I suspect that some of what we call "unconscious processing" is, in fact, conscious from someone else's perspective. But I see no reason to commit ourselves to saying that all such processing must be conscious from someone's perspective.
A fully unconscious process would be, shall we say "mechanical" in the sense that it is a causal chain of events following a sort of "algorithmic" script – somewhat like a robot following a complex program. In this case the "program" is a collection of "neural habits" (something like neural event B following neural event A for no other reason than because events like B in the past typically followed events like A in the past). In other words, past events (many of which may have once been conscious) wore a "thermodynamic groove" such that now the process just "runs on auto-pilot" so to speak. These processes can be highly complex – even to the point of approaching low levels of semantically meaningful cognition – but they are still "merely mechanical" relative to what goes on in a genuinely conscious process.
On a related note: Some evidence suggests that the vast, vast, vast majority of what happens in the brain during a conscious event is actually unconscious. (So, for example, a single conscious moment is composed of a ratio of millions or even billions of unconscious parts for every one part that actually is reportable by the subject as the contents of conscious awareness.) For some interesting reading along these lines I suggest "The User Illusion" by Tor Norretranders. Anyway, my point is that a great deal of this unconscious processing can be qualitative, despite the fact that it is unconscious. I sympathize with how weird it is to think that the process we consciously experience as "the redness of red" could be, in fact, 99.99999 percent unconscious, but I see no logical contradiction in this claim, and there are empirical reasons to think that this might just be a weird fact of life.
So, what I'm suggesting is that the 99.99999 percent of activity constituting "the redness of red" is, in fact, qualitative, even without the additional ("high-level", "tip of the iceberg") .000001 percent that brings it all together into the "ah-ha, I see a red wall" aspect of the conscious moment. An iceberg is still an iceberg, even if it is fully submerged. The little tip that generally sticks out of the water is not what actually constitutes the iceberg as an iceberg. And just to further the analogy one more step: There is no particular reason that "this" little piece of the iceberg necessarily has to be the piece that sticks above water. If some other part of the iceberg stuck out, the conscious manifestation of the experience would no longer be "the redness of red" but my point is that the very same unconscious qualia that compose the conscious "redness of red" can be constitutive components of other potentially conscious qualia. I elaborate on this idea in my thesis (although I didn't think of the iceberg analogy until just now).
I think I have already defined/explained this as well as I can, for now. But let's see if I can summarize: I've mentioned psychological evidence suggesting that people can perceive qualitative information (e.g., be "primed" for colors, etc., in psychological tests) without consciously realizing that they have perceived this information (i.e., if you ask "What color was the dot?" they will say "I didn't see any dot.") The evidence also suggests that there is a reasonably high level of cognitive processing related to this unconscious information.
Quick note: There is controversy over how high-level this processing is, but 3 things seem clear: (1) It is not as high-level as ordinary consciousness - i.e., no deep/creative thinking or dealing with deep semantic subtleties. (2) It can involve some fairly complex behaviors, such as correctly grasping a pencil. (3) It can evoke emotion responses - e.g., an unconsciously perceived image of fire coming of a house window can lead a person to say "I wouldn't want to live in that house!"
Some folks will want to say that all of these "unconscious" processes are actually conscious, when viewed from some other perspective – such as "multiple personalities" inhabiting a single body, or God's consciousness. I believe that multiple personalities are possible, and thus I suspect that some of what we call "unconscious processing" is, in fact, conscious from someone else's perspective. But I see no reason to commit ourselves to saying that all such processing must be conscious from someone's perspective.
A fully unconscious process would be, shall we say "mechanical" in the sense that it is a causal chain of events following a sort of "algorithmic" script – somewhat like a robot following a complex program. In this case the "program" is a collection of "neural habits" (something like neural event B following neural event A for no other reason than because events like B in the past typically followed events like A in the past). In other words, past events (many of which may have once been conscious) wore a "thermodynamic groove" such that now the process just "runs on auto-pilot" so to speak. These processes can be highly complex – even to the point of approaching low levels of semantically meaningful cognition – but they are still "merely mechanical" relative to what goes on in a genuinely conscious process.
On a related note: Some evidence suggests that the vast, vast, vast majority of what happens in the brain during a conscious event is actually unconscious. (So, for example, a single conscious moment is composed of a ratio of millions or even billions of unconscious parts for every one part that actually is reportable by the subject as the contents of conscious awareness.) For some interesting reading along these lines I suggest "The User Illusion" by Tor Norretranders. Anyway, my point is that a great deal of this unconscious processing can be qualitative, despite the fact that it is unconscious. I sympathize with how weird it is to think that the process we consciously experience as "the redness of red" could be, in fact, 99.99999 percent unconscious, but I see no logical contradiction in this claim, and there are empirical reasons to think that this might just be a weird fact of life.
So, what I'm suggesting is that the 99.99999 percent of activity constituting "the redness of red" is, in fact, qualitative, even without the additional ("high-level", "tip of the iceberg") .000001 percent that brings it all together into the "ah-ha, I see a red wall" aspect of the conscious moment. An iceberg is still an iceberg, even if it is fully submerged. The little tip that generally sticks out of the water is not what actually constitutes the iceberg as an iceberg. And just to further the analogy one more step: There is no particular reason that "this" little piece of the iceberg necessarily has to be the piece that sticks above water. If some other part of the iceberg stuck out, the conscious manifestation of the experience would no longer be "the redness of red" but my point is that the very same unconscious qualia that compose the conscious "redness of red" can be constitutive components of other potentially conscious qualia. I elaborate on this idea in my thesis (although I didn't think of the iceberg analogy until just now).
I see what is confusing you about this non-conscious/unconscious distinction that you are positing. There has never been any doubt that the bulk of processing in the brain is unconscious and subject to conditioned associations . . . but they are only inputs to the process of turning our life energy into consciousness. The resolution of all those inputs into each in-process conscious "lump of awareness" . . . (we experience as our instantaneous Self) . . . is what determines what we are adding to (maturing) the composite character of our permanent conscious Soul . . . (which we can only experience as our unconscious at this level of becoming).
There is no such thing as unconscious . . . just consciousness at the pure energy (light-squared) level of becoming. We consider it unconscious ONLY because we cannot experience its conscious character directly at our sub-light molecular level of being. Our in-process consciousness provides us only temporary access as our "fleeting" thoughts and feelings merge with the universal field (substrate) that is established by God's consciousness.
Personally, I'd much rather continue here, unless a moderator gets fed up and tells us to "get a room."
Apparently Arequipa convinced GW to take it private. I can understand since it has come too close to shattering his arrogant certainty about his materialistic worldview. Oh well . . . C'est la vie!
Science didn't cause everything to be created either. It all goes back to the beginning. Big Bang? A supreme being (God) sounds a lot better than saying two things collided out of nowhere. Plus, how do you know if the Scientist are telling the truth? It still requires faith to believe the Big Bang theory.
.....If your topic involves the creation of everything.
Apparently Arequipa convinced GW to take it private. I can understand since it has come too close to shattering his arrogant certainty about his materialistic worldview. Oh well . . . C'est la vie!
I think you must have been a bit cross-eyed when you read my post. I specifically said I wanted to keep the discussion here, and "here" means here on the open forum. I want to maximize the potential for different viewpoints.
And as for "arrogant certainty" - well, maybe arrogant is a reasonable description, but "certainty" sounds like a very odd word to me. I am extremely uncertain about the whole "primordial consciousness" question. I feel farily confident that what you call the "biblegod" concept is false, but I seriously wavier from one day to the next on primordial consciousness. I may appear more consistent in the arguing here because, frankly, if the theist position is true, then it sorta takes the fun out of trying to develop a more naturalistic type of theory. It's just too easy to simply say "God did it," and intuitively I just don't feel like it is my "path" to follow.
I guess I do have a deep sort of certainty in the feeling that I am on the right general path of honest inquiry, but I really don't know where it leads.
I think you must have been a bit cross-eyed when you read my post. I specifically said I wanted to keep the discussion here, and "here" means here on the open forum. I want to maximize the potential for different viewpoints.
And as for "arrogant certainty" - well, maybe arrogant is a reasonable description, but "certainty" sounds like a very odd word to me.
Sorry for the confusion GW . . . I was talking specifically about Arequipa . . .not you.
Quote:
I am extremely uncertain about the whole "primordial consciousness" question. I feel farily confident that what you call the "biblegod" concept is false, but I seriously wavier from one day to the next on primordial consciousness. I may appear more consistent in the arguing here because, frankly, if the theist position is true, then it sorta takes the fun out of trying to develop a more naturalistic type of theory. It's just too easy to simply say "God did it," and intuitively I just don't feel like it is my "path" to follow.
I guess I do have a deep sort of certainty in the feeling that I am on the right general path of honest inquiry, but I really don't know where it leads.
I understand . . . and that is what Arequipa senses and does not want to confront. Before your wonderful and patient explanations he had a rock-solid certainty that has now been "dented" and he doesn't want to risk any more damage to it . . . especially not publicly. I completely understand your conundrum in seeking a PhD in the current anti-theistic consensus. I wish you luck . . . but you will not succeed in justifying a "primordial qualitative conscious/unconscious" without invoking a conscious universal field as the substrate. That is God . . . no matter what euphemism you might coin for it. Your issues with Biblegod are legitimate . . . but a monist materialism simply does not exist.
Science didn't cause everything to be created either. It all goes back to the beginning. Big Bang? A supreme being (God) sounds a lot better than saying two things collided out of nowhere. Plus, how do you know if the Scientist are telling the truth? It still requires faith to believe the Big Bang theory.
.....If your topic involves the creation of everything.
To have faith in X is to believe that X is true, and act upon the basis of this belief, even though you have no logical proof or absolute certainty. I, for example, have faith in the value of logic; I have faith in my own ability to think rationally (notice lack of absolute certainty, which often leads me to re-think, double-check, give benefit of doubt in some cases, etc.). On the basis of these two basic faiths, I have further faith in the overall value of the scientific method.
I do not have faith in the value of ancient manuscripts when used as guides to historical, scientific, or metaphysical truth. Some ancient manuscripts (as well as some modern systems of spiritual practice) are inspirational and thought-provoking. I accept what I find to be of value, and don't bother much with the rest. I do not have faith that the universe is ultimately rational (in fact, I strongly suspect that some of the most basic aspects of existence are ultimately beyond the reach of pure rational thought). I do not have faith that the universe was designed for a purpose. I do not have faith that the universe was not designed for a purpose. For me the ultimate questions are open questions.
I have faith in my existential feeling that it is ultimately best for me to not have faith in any particular answer about the ultimate meaning or purpose of existence - or lack thereof. I have faith that it is best to approach open questions with an open, inquisitive mind.
To have faith in X is to believe that X is true, and act upon the basis of this belief, even though you have no logical proof or absolute certainty. I, for example, have faith in the value of logic; I have faith in my own ability to think rationally (notice lack of absolute certainty, which often leads me to re-think, double-check, give benefit of doubt in some cases, etc.). On the basis of these two basic faiths, I have further faith in the overall value of the scientific method.
I do not have faith in the value of ancient manuscripts when used as guides to historical, scientific, or metaphysical truth. Some ancient manuscripts (as well as some modern systems of spiritual practice) are inspirational and thought-provoking. I accept what I find to be of value, and don't bother much with the rest. I do not have faith that the universe is ultimately rational (in fact, I strongly suspect that some of the most basic aspects of existence are ultimately beyond the reach of pure rational thought). I do not have faith that the universe was designed for a purpose. I do not have faith that the universe was not designed for a purpose. For me the ultimate questions are open questions.
I have faith in my existential feeling that it is ultimately best for me to not have faith in any particular answer about the ultimate meaning or purpose of existence - or lack thereof. I have faith that it is best to approach open questions with an open, inquisitive mind.
This is precisely what my views were after 30+ years of atheism (some 40+ years ago). Without the epiphany of that deep meditative experience . . I suspect it would have remained so.
This is precisely what my views were after 30+ years of atheism (some 40+ years ago). Without the epiphany of that deep meditative experience . . I suspect it would have remained so.
This is fine, and I respect your attempts to lead others to a similar insight via various forms of rational argumentation. As I think you yourself understand, IF I am ever going to reach a similar insight, I must arrive at this point in my own way. As I see it, insight can never really be given; it must always be earned. (I suspect that even seemingly spontaneous visions/insights occur because in some sense the psychological groundwork has alread been done, but I could be wrong - perhaps there could sometimes be sheer luck or magic involved?)
My main disagreement with you is when you imply that your conclusions are the only rational ones, or that you have offered a scientifically valid account of your theism. I certainly respect your efforts to characterize your insight in rational/scientific terms (I would do the same thing, if I were you), but your science is still wishy-washy and your reasoning has some important weak spots (according to me). But despite all of this, I certainly do admit that you could be right about theism.
But on a slightly different note:
I've lately been thinking about a distinction between sentience and consciousness. I'd like to suggest that consciousness does not exist until a physical system achieves a fairly high level of self-reflection, which is to say, it recognizes itself as a "self" in contrast to the world (not-self). Consciousness would be built upon sentience, which I would define as organized, goal-oriented, qualitative experience (which can be broadly characterized in terms of attraction and avoidance). Sentience, in turn, is based on the fundamentally qualitative nature of reality (where "qualitative" in this fundamental sense is just the potential-for sentient experience. The pre-sentient qualitative nature of reality is what I have been trying to model as a "chaos" - which gives us a way to get some handle on the mechanisms by which the potential-for sentience becomes actualized sentience (the relatively organized nature of sentience emerges as patterns in the chaos). This, in turn, is based on my Aristotelian view (which Heisenberg adopted for his understanding of the basis of quantum mechanics) - which posits a real distinction between potentiality and actuality (potentials really exist, but they do not actually exist). The reality of each potential rests in the nature of what it would be if it were to be actualized, and every actualized entity implies one choice from a field of many possible choices. Thus we have a sort of lineage from inherently qualitative potentiality, to qualitative actuality, to sentience, and then to consciousness.
This approach could be seen as nothing but a pointless tautology (consciousness emerges from reality's potential-for-consciousness) - and perhaps in some deep sense it is just a tautology - but even if it is just a tautology it is not a pointless one. Why? Because it provides the basis for a model that hooks up with the empirical world. We can study the principles of self-organizing chaos both mathematically and empirically, so we can (at least in principle) trace the evolution from pure potential to fully actualized consciousness. In a cellular automata, for example, we can intuitively understand the sense in which the "potential-for" a pattern exists prior to the pattern's actual existence, so if our model is explicitly qualitative (i.e., if the patterns represent sentient and/or conscious experiences) then we have some intuitive way to understand the sense in which the chaos from which these patterns emerge is "pre-sentient" and the sentience from which consciousness emerges is "pre-conscious" (or "unconscious").
Now, one last curiosity to consider in this context. Is there any way in which my model could account for your mystical insight into the existence of a primordially conscious God, in such a way that you are not merely delusional, but are, in fact, tapping into some basic truth about the nature of reality? Maybe. Physics suggests that time, as we ordinarily conceive of it, is an illusion. If time, as we ordinarily understand it, is really just an aspect of qualitative conscious experience, then time - as such - would not actually exist until (or unless) consciousness exits. In other words, time would actually exist (it is not "just" an illusion), but our concept of time would still be illusory insofar as we insist upon projecting our consciously-conceive concept of time backwards (psychologically attempting to project the emergent nature of an emergent phenomena back into that from which it emerged). What this boils down to is that time would not exist except in the context of consciousness, so the very concept of consciousness "emerging from sentience" or sentience "emerging from" a qualitative chaos would always already be infected with this illusory "backward-projecting." There cannot be a "time" before time, so there cannot be a "beginning" of time, and there cannot be a "time" before consciousness. If a truth of this sort were to be experienced in some mystical way, then it could reasonably be interpreted as a direct experience of the primordial nature of consciousness itself. And this interpretation would be correct in a very profound way. This would not preclude us from modeling the underlying metaphysical basis for a lineage from chaos to sentience to consciousness, but we would have to understand these two ways of understanding as complementary forms of understanding (in the sense in which Bohr applied the notion of "complementary" in his interpretation of quantum mechanics (aka, the "Copenhagen interpretation").
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
